Comments on: The Dance is Not Perichōrēsishttp://www.nbseminary.ca/the-dance-is-not-perichrsis
This is the Northwest Baptist Seminary WebsiteThu, 09 Oct 2014 16:05:46 +0000hourly1By: Larry Perkinshttp://www.nbseminary.ca/the-dance-is-not-perichrsis/comment-page-1#comment-10155
Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:25:39 +0000http://www.nbseminary.com/archives/135#comment-10155Thank you for your response. I appreciate the clarification. I have no issue with the Trinitarian relationship being described in a dynamic fashion as you indicate. Nor am I offended by the notion that this relationship may appropriately be described as “dancing,” despite my Baptist heritage! My point was simply that the term “perichoresis”, to the extent that I have been able to determine, did not mean “dance”, which seems to be the implication of some modern writers when they use this term in reference to Trinitarian discussion. So by all means we can use the analogy of “dance” to describe metaphorically such Trinitarian relationship, but I think it is not correct, if this was the intent, to suggest that the Greek term perichoresis means “dance”. Lampe in his Patristic Greek Lexicon does cite numerous examples of the use of the noun and cognate verb in the writings of John of Damascus. If I have misunderstood your intent, my apologies, but this is how it seemed to be expressed in your publication.

I hope this clarifies my concern.

I will not comment on the proposed interpretation of “pros” re John 1:1 as this was not discussed in the article. However, I will need to think more carefully about that proposal.

And again, thank you for your response.

Larry Perkins

]]>By: George Cladishttp://www.nbseminary.ca/the-dance-is-not-perichrsis/comment-page-1#comment-10071
Mon, 28 Feb 2011 01:56:18 +0000http://www.nbseminary.com/archives/135#comment-10071Hi Larry, thank you for your thoughtful reflections on “perichoresis”. We may not come to agreement about some things regarding this term, but I thought I would comment on your post. It seems to me your concern is not so much whether or not the persons of the Trinity are in dynamic relationship (movement, giving, sharing, exchanging) but whether or not they are “dancing.” So, the concern is more about an English word than a Greek word, since perichoresis definitely implies movement. As you note, John of Damascus, who is after the classical (Liddell and Scott) and patristic eras of the church, used this term to describe the three persons of the Trinity as “cleaving” to each other — implying movement. I personally drew upon the work of Dr. Shirley Guthrie in “Christian Doctrine” to be helpful as well as Maroslov Volf (“After Our Likeness”) at Yale Divinity who both use the term “perichoresis” to mean a dynamic relationship of the persons of the Trinity that imply movement rather than a static state. Guthrie goes so far as to call it a dance, which I found intriguing, and believes the word can sustain that definition. However, whether or not we agree on that, I find John 1:1 to be interesting: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God…” “With” here is “pros” which implies movement. Other Greek words, as you know, could have been used (and are used elsewhere) to describe a more static “withness” but here John uses “pros” implying movement. So, many of us, looking at this verse and many others, conclude that the Godhead is in dynamic movement, sharing, giving, extending, inviting, reaching out, reaching in — rather than just…well…sitting still. And some of us describe this movement as “dance”. But, if that word feels offensive or too modern, then certainly other terms can be used to describe a God who refuses to sit still, either internally or externally. Regards, George Cladis
]]>